How transparency "works" - a mental map

At the Accra High Level Forum in 2008 donors and aid recipients proclaimed „We will make aid more transparent“. The rational of this promise was, that transparency will increase aid effectiveness, curb corruption and enhance democratic participation of civil society. In fact, in recent years a number of authors and institutions have suggested that transparency can be a powerful tool to promote governance – in aid and in other areas of government. But how exactly does this tool work? What are the processes that transform access to information into better governance? And what are the conditions that need to be in place for these processes to „work“? In the following discussion I suggest, that there are four key elements that need to be considered for successful transparency initiatives: open data, transflation of data into information, feedback and action of civil society and change in government institutions. My objective is to start developing a mental map of transparency mechanisms which hopefully results in successful transparency strategies.

OPEN DATA: The first key element is open data. Either government institutions have to provide data pro-actively, or civil society has to search for open data either through formal requests or through other means. For example some hackers were able to access data on their own, Wikileaks uses data provided by insiders. For transparency initiatives to work well data should be legally and technically open, so it can be reused. It should be up-to-date or better still forward looking to be relevant for current policy. Most of all data should be detailed enough to provide any added value to civil society and other stakeholders.

INFORMATION: A good and open database will not be sufficient. Data needs to be translated into information. In countries with a vibrant “hacker-community” the translation of data into information may be done spontaneously by individuals or groups. In other situations this job has to be formally organised. Informations need to relevant to many people. The combination of different data (mashups) can be powerful to communicate complex issues. For information to be useful in the promotion of good governance it has to easy to understand. In some cases it may have to be translated into the language of potential users or visualised to be accessible. What is particularly important is, that information is communicated and spread widely where and when it will be found. Citizens and other stakeholders need to find the information, even if they are not specifically looking for it. Information must be online, but in many cases online is not enough. Online, mobil and traditional media channels such as meetings, radio and newspapers need to be integrated to reach a wider public.

FEEDBACK: Image you are a citizen of a country with a less then perfect record on human rights. If you get information about e.g. corruption within the government, what do you do? As a journalist in a place with limited freedom of press, you may choose to not use critical information. Apart from freedom of press, respect for human rights and rule of law there are other conditions to be met for transparency to work. To provide feedback on transparent information always needs resources. At a minimum it requires time. But usually also money, organisational capacity and networks are needed. The more relevant information is to civil society and the easier it is to provide feedback, the more impact information can have.

CHANGE: A last key element for transparency is response from government institutions, from administrative bodies, from donor agencies in the case of aid. Feedback of civil society needs to translate into change. Evidently the political leadership and political will is critical for authorities to respond positively to feedback and to react. Other conditions for change are organisational cultures within government administrations or donor agencies where feedback is valued and administrative processes that can actually accommodate feedback. If authorities are willing to listen to citizens but feedback does not enter formal planning processes or policy development, change will be small. Also, authorities need to have the mandate, the time and the resources to respond to feedback and implement changes.

This proposed mental map is work in progress. Please comment!